A. Yes, I showed him our files.
Q. Did you inform him about the work of the German Navy and the German Air-sea rescue service in France?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you inform him about your knowledge of work on human beings?
A. No. Professor Alexander wanted to know about our work, and we had not performed any tests on human beings, and the tests on animals and pigs, I have described, and I showed Professor Alexander all these records.
Q. Did Professor Alexander ask you whether any work on human beings was being done, either by yourself or any one else whom you knew? Didn't he ask you that in June 1945?
A. Professor Alexander asked me how I knew that our methods had pproved of value in regard to human beings, and the only thing I failed to tell Professor Alexander at that time was my attendance at the Nurnberg Conference, and what I knew about the Nurnberg Conference.
Q. Of course, you knew that Dr. Alexander was at that time working on what was called CIOS-Target, No. 24, Medical Investigation Team for the Combine of Intelligence Subjective Subcommittee G-2, Division of Shaef, and he wrote an extensive report as the result of his work, and this report I have a copy of here, which was written in the year of 1945, which was a considerable long time ago, that is, before he came here, and, that is before this trial, before the time you were indicted; he stated in that report on page 12 in reference to one Dr. Weltz, wherein I might add he gives you considerable credit, that you were asked whether you had ever done any work on human beings, and he had asked, and I quote what he said about you, "He" referring to Weltz, "who was then asked whether any work on human beings was done either by himself or by any one else with whom he knew, and he was again quite positive in denying the question." Now, what was your reason for not informing Dr. Alexander about your knowledge of work by Rascher?
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, may I object. I hear that Professor Alexander is here in the building, and he can appear as a witness. Since the Tribunal follows the principle that the best and shortest means of evidence is always to be applied, I ask the Tribunal that Professor Alexander be called to the stand personally, instead of reading a document.
MR. HARDY: That is not necessary, Your Honor. I am not calling Dr. Alexander to testify. I am merely asking this witness on the stand what he said in answer to questions two years ago. I am merely just searching the witness for information about how he felt about these matters two years ago, and if the witness denies what he said it may necessitate calling Dr. Alexander on the stand. I am introducing this report, which was an exhibit before the International Military Tribunal, and I can If I wish, request the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof. I deem it unnecessary, I am merely probing the witness, and I am not relying on Dr. Alexander's testimony whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution may ask the witness if if Dr. Alexander on the time and place mentioned propounded certain questions to the witness, and the witness has answered the same. If the record is preserved, the question propounded by that question can be taken from that record and propounded to the witness. With that understanding the objection over-ruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Weltz, what was your reason for not informing the officials of the United States Army in this matter about all the activities at Dachau concerning experimentation on human beings, wherein you were fully aware of the activities, inasmuch as you had known the results of Professor Holzloehner's work at Nurnberg Conference. Was it because you thought you might be involved in some criminal activity, or, was it because you did not want to give the enemy further information?
A. I already said that Professor Alexander never in any way was recognizable as or presented himself to me, or to my associates, as an official investigator, and particularly not as an investigator of the American judicial or intelligence Service. He came as a scientist who was interested.
Q. I imagine the scientist was extremely interested in knowing whether or not the work as result of your research, and the research of Lepchinsky of the 1800, had been performed on human beings; not from a legal aspect, but from an scientific aspect. You had far more reasons to inform Dr. Alexander about that work on the human beings, didn't you?
A. I already said that I gave Professor Alexander all the files completely we had preserved except what were burned in Munich, which were not of interest to Dr. Alexander. I had reason not to tell anything unless I was asked directly for the following reasons: At that time there started a wave of arrests, which no one could then grasp. I remember a number of my acquaintances had been arrested, and we did not know for what reasons they were arrested, and we did not know where the people were being sent. Therefore, in order not to bring anyone in the danger of arrest I said no more than the things for which I was responsible. I gave Professor Alexander all the information about things for which I was responsible to do. I did add nothing, for reasons of comradeship. I did not consider I had any right to give any additional information, and put other people in danger of arrest, because we could not see how that information would be used.
Q. Then you were attempting to cover up Dr. Rascher?
A. I knew very little about Rascher's activity.
Q. You knew all about his activity. You were at the October meeting in 1942?
A. Yes, it became quite clear here how much I knew about Rascher. I know that he performed the experiments in Dachau together with Holzloeh ner.
I did not know that any deaths had occurred. I did not know to what extent these experiments were legal. I knew very little about them. Particularly of course, since my knowledge was so indefinite, I had no reason to talk about other institutes, and because it happened outside of my own institute, which was something about which I had no exact information to give.
Q. Doctor, this examination is going to take considerable length of time. During the remainder of the examination I want you to cooperate, and I want you to try to be consistent. You have introduced a document here this morning wherein you have attempted to show this Tribunal how important was this work on Shock From Exposure to Cold to the United States Navy and Armies in the Asiatic Area, which was written in the Readers Digest; and here you state now inconsistently that you yourself were violently opposed to volunteering any information on the experimental work conducted on human beings, and that the answer was available for the United States Medical services by virtue of your knowledge at the conference in October. Now, Doctor, we shall try to proceed from here and do so in a better manner than you have for the last half hour.
A. May I correct what you just said. Two expert commissions had visited us before that time, Aviation Medical experts, and I gave these two commissions all our studies published and what had not been published as yet. We showed these gentlemen all our films; we made all our files available to them, and also we gave them our separate prints. I drew up a report in five copies on the work which was being carried on, and made suggestions how to keep the institute going, and how our experience can be turned over to the hands of the American Armies. We made detailed suggestions.
Q. Did you also tell those investigating teams that experiments on human beings had been conducted at Dachau?
A. I said......
Q. That can be answered, yes or no, Doctor? Did you or did you not?
A. I told them about the work of my institute, and not of other institutes.
Q. That is what I understood. When did you join the NSDAP, Doctor?
A. I said, that was 1937.
Q. 1937. You were also a member of the National Socialist Physicians' Association?
A. Yes.
Q. You were a member of the National Socialistic Lecturers Association?
A. Yes.
Q. Now when did you come into the Luftwaffe? You say in your affidavit in August 1939. Now, what was the first rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A. I was Stabsarzt. That is the same thing as a captain.
Q. And then when were you promoted to major?
A. I believe around the first half of 1940. I don't remember exactly.
Q. Did you rise any higher?
A. At the end of the war I was Oberfeldarzt. That is equivalent to lieutenant colonel.
Q. That was the last rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A. That was the highest rank, yes.
Q. When your institute was first formed, in 1940, was it ----
A. 1941.
Q. In 1941, what was the name of our institute at that time?
A. The institute was always called "Institute for Aviation Medicine, "Munich."
Q. What was Luftgau Number 7?
A. The Luftgau 7 was the regional organization of the Luftwaffe. All Germany was divided into a number of Luftgaus, and Luftgau No. 7 was the one in the area around Munich.
Q. And were you under the jurisdiction of Luftgau No 7?
A. For economic and disciplinary purposes, I was under Luftgau 7. As head of the Institute, in scientific respects, I was under the Medical Inspectorate of Aviation Medicine, directly.
Q. That would be Anthony's office?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, in Luftgau No. 7, did they have a medical department?
A. Yes. They had a medical officer there. He was the Luftgau physician.
Q. Did they ever consult with you about any matters of research or things of that nature, between the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 and your Institute?
A. No. In scientific things we had nothing to do with the Luftgau, except in the rare cases when the Luftgau called upon us, for example, in the training course which Rascher writes of. In such cases we were called upon to help in the projects of the Luftgau, but the Luftgau had no influence on our research work. The research assignments, as I have already said, were in part according to directives which I received from the Medical Inspectorate, and sometimes I received definite assignments from the Medical Inspectorate.
Q. Well, now, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have consultants or specialists on their staff; say, for instance, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have internists, and things of that nature?
A. I would assume so, yes. All the doctors who worked at the Luftgau, had a certain field that they were in charge of.
Q. Suppose you wanted something done; suppose you were forming research, for a moment, and you wanted some particular work done for you in the course of your research which you could not do yourself because of the fact that you did not have a specialist in your organization to do it for you. Then who would you have referred to? Would you have referred to Luftgau No. 7 and asked them for an expert or asked them to take care of this particular situation that you wanted cleared up?
A. I can not imagine a case such as you are asking You assume that the Luftgau gives me a research assignment?
Q. No, no, what I am trying to get at is this: Do you recall one of our documents concerning freezing, wherein Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke and Dr. Singer were recommended to carry out---it is Document No 283, on Page 12. It is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, where he states that he has asked for permission--that is, Hippke has asked for permission--to carry out the cold water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments. He says, one, Professor Dr. Jarisch, two, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, and then as well as the Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer of the Schwabing-Hospital. Well, now, what I am getting at is first, we must establish the position of Professor Dr. Singer. As you and I both know, he refused to do any work of that sort as soon as he discovered what it was, and how did the name of Professor Dr. Singer happen to be mentioned in this letter? Was he a consulting pathologist to your institute, or was he just a pathologist on the staff of the Schwabing-Hospital, or how did this occasion arise that Professor Singer was mentioned?
A. I'll answer your first question first. Professor Singer in his civilian position was a pathologist at Schwabing-Hospital. During the war he continued with this work, and at the same time he was a pathologist in Luftgau 7.
Q. In Luftgau 7?
A. In Luftgau 7. I personally had nothing whatever to do with Singer. My institute was quite independent in scientific respects. If I had ever had any pathological and anatomical work to do, which was not the case, then I could have gone to Singer and could have asked Singer, on the basis of his capacity as consulting pathologist, to help me in this work.
Q. Well, then actually Doctor, if you needed the services of Professor Dr. Singer, then you theoretically would go through the channel of Luftgau No. 7 and ask for his services as the pathologist in Luftgau No. 7; is that correct? He is a member of the Luftwaffe, so to speak. He is a part of your organization, the overall organization, and if you needed the services of a pathologist, then you would go to Singer; is that right? It would be because of the fact that he was in Luftgau No. 7, not a private physician in Schwabing-Hospital?
A. I personally could go to any pathologist who seemed suited, and in practice, in cases where I went to a pathologist at all, when I was interested in findings, for example, liver findings--what does the liver look like in people who have drowned in the cold, in such cases in practice I always went to Buechner because Buechner had specific experience in the field of cold, but theoretically I could have gone to Singer, too, or I could have gone to the Vienna pathologist, if I thought that he was especially qualified. I was quite unrestricted in that respect, but the routine pathological work went to Singer. Let's take an example. A man has been asphixiated from gasoline fumes at an airfield. The case is not clear. There is an autopsy. This autopsy would automatically have come under Singer, or in Luftgau 7 an airplane had made an emergency landing and there had been injuries. That would have been Singers work. That had nothing to do with my institute. I was directly under the Aviation Ministry scientifically, and in practice it did not happen that I ever called upon Singer for assistance.
Q. Well now, what kind of a man was Dr. Singer? He apparently was a substantial character, wasn't he?
A. May I ask what you mean exactly, in what respect?
Q. Well, it is apparent here from the evidence before as in this Tribunal that Dr. Singer had the opportunity to assist and to collaborate with Rascher and Holzloehner and Finke at Dachau, and apparently he refused to collaborate when he heard of the nature of the experiments, and being a pathologist, he must have known very well that deaths would occur or they wouldn't need his services, so consequently he would have no part of it. Now, I would like to now just want type of man Dr. Singer was. Was he a credible person? Was he a good physician, a good pathologist? Was he considered by yourself to be of good reputation, and so forth?
A. Yes, respecting his scientific capacity and his character, I never heard anything bad. In peacetime one of my internes, as you can see from my list of publications, wrote something on the heart and asthma bronchitis at Singer's institute. I never heard anything bad about Singer's character, and he had a good reputation as a scientist.
Q. Did you ever hear of a Stabarzt Onken, O-N-K-E-N, the adjutant of the medical department of Lufgau 7? Did you over hear of that name?
A. I do not remember him personally. I do remember the name, though, but I can't remember today in what connection I heard it.
Q. Well, now, being the adjutant of the medical department of Luftgau No. 7, he would have some sort of jurisdiction, perhaps disciplinary, over your institute, would he not?
A. The Luftgau physician did, not the adjutant.
Q. Well, that office would; the medical department would.
A. I just remember, Oken was adjutant of the Luftgau physician of Luftgau 7 fur sometime.
Q. Well, now, who would be the superior of the medical department of Luftgau 7? Who did they in turn report their activities to?
A. All the Luftgaus were under the Medical Inspectorate.
A. Than that would go directly to Hippke or to Schroeder?
A. The Luftgaus and the Luftgau physicians were under the Medical Inspectorate. As to what section that went, that depended on the subject matter.
A. Well, now, would Becker-Freyseng, to your knowledge of these activities, have had any interest in same of the reports and work of the medical department of the Luftgau, or would he be merely interested in the work of organizations such as yours?
A. To what extent collaboration between BeckerFreyseng's department and the Luftgau physicians was carried out, I don't know; I can't say anything about this organization.
Q Now, Doctor, what was your fooling toward the Fuehrer? Were you an ardent Nazi?
A I have attempted to explain that. I will be glad to do so in more detail. In 1933 when the Revolution came and the National Socialism came to power, I was quite remote from any political activity and quite outside of any party. On the other hand, it was quite clear to most Germans at that time that it was a decisive struggle to decide which of the two armed parties would get control of Germany. In 1932, in Germany, we had three armed parties and these three armed parties all had their own party army, or their own party guard, and they fought each other. With power that surprised no, the National Socialists seized power. I was quite foreign to the ideas of the Party at that time. Because of the serious unemployment and the depression from 1930 to 1933, the party with an energy which again surprised me brought about an economic improvement which impressed very much not only me, but no doubt most people. I had the opportunity at the Olympic Games in 1936 to speak to quite a number of foreigners and there were quite a few people among then who were quite impressed by these economic improvements. I do not expect that a party fulfill all my personal ideas 100% in its program -
Q Well, Dr. Weltz, I don't think it is necessary for us to go into all this background; what I want to know is were you in favor of the Fuehrer or were you perhaps, or were you like Wolfram Sievers, a member of the Resistance Movement?
A No, I was not a member of a resistance Movement and as far as my relations with the Fuehrer arc concerned, I can only toll you that it changed a number of times according to my knowledge of things and persons.
Q When did this attitude take place, in 1938, '39, '40, '41, '42, '43, '44, or '45, just when?
A The year was 1939; for the first time I realized that the big line of policy which Hitler had promised had been wrecked. That was when the war broke out. Of course, then came successful campaigns, which I was glad to see as a German. Then very seen I realized that in spite of these successes the war was lost for Germany, because I know very well the American Air Force Construction program. I know a great many figures of them and I did not understand then, from the year 1941 on, that this danger was not clearly seen and that the people were so optimistic. Before Stalingrad, I realized that the whole campaign in the East was a failure. Perhaps I may mention something that helps my memory. Before Stalingrad, when we occupied Stalingrad, but when the offensive had not started yet, I bet Mr. Lutz a bottle of cognac, that we would have to leave Russia, while Lutz thought we could keep all Russia up to the Ural. I just happened to remember that. Now, as the war became more and more senseless, from 1941 on at the latest, my attitude toward the party became more hostile and in the last years it was definitely antagonistic. Now, for a man in my position without special connections, without special information, it was rather difficult to do anything, not only because things were dangerous - we experienced all kinds of dangerous things during the war - but the primary difficulty was that one should have a sensible goal. I tried to - please don't think this is a claim that I belonged to a Resistance Movement; I just want to tell you about it - I had a small group of officers who believed as I did; I gathered them around me. We discussed the situation in a way that was different from other officers of the hospital.
It was clear that the war was lost and all the talk of new weapons were nonsense and bluff, but none of us succeeded in setting up a sensible program which might have had any prospects of realization. They were extremely difficult things, because everyone realized that any Putsch at all would just mean the collapse of the war and above all that of the Eastern front and what that would mean we saw clearly. We thought about it a great deal, of course. We didn't like to see cities like Munich and Nurnberg suffering from one air raid after another, being slowly destroyed.
Q Before you get into the later phase of the war, in 1938 when Germany started to invade countries, they invaded Austria and various other countries, from then on, what was your feeling then about the Fuehrer? Were you still willing to follow him when ho was invading Austria?
A We in Southern Bavaria experienced the invasion of Austria rather closely and the impression which we had then from all the Austrians coming over was not the impression that of a poor country being attacked. Before that I had been in Austria myself and as a neutral observer, I had an opportunity to meet people in Vienna. There was no doubt whatever that in Austria at that time there were a great many people in favor of the Anschluss. If there is an opinion to the contrary today, that is a distortion of history, undoubtedly.
Q Then, didn't you see that when the Fuehrer was taking these forward stops that war was inevitable?
A We hoped that through the Munich Conference, this danger of war would be eliminated and I was very happy about the agreement which was reached there.
Q You were of the opinion, were you not, at that time that Adolf Hitler was the greatest man in the world for peace, weren't you?
AAt that time I considered Adolf Hitler an important politician who had the aim of the United States of Europe and was taking up against a tradition which had failed with Napoleon. We realized that the split of Europe into many small countries in relation to the large spaces of America and Russia was an intolerable situation and that we had to create a unified Europe in order to exist, and that was Hitler's aim, and that was an aim which I approved of.
Q Now, Doctor, in 1941, we see the first evidence of experimentation on human beings, that is, the first thought about it, here before this Tribunal, by virtue of the Rascher Document 1602-PS, which is now in Document Book No. 2, that is a substitute for the one that is in the document book, Your Honor, which is dated the 15th of May, 1941. Now, you, in the course of your direct examination, have discussed the feasibility of Rascher's proposition here and I would like to know what was the first time that plans or thoughts or any scheme for experiments on human beings for high altitude research upon concentration camp inmates was brought home to you?
A I believe, I said that in my direct examination as well as I can. Before the discussion with Hippke.
Q Just a moment. The discussion with Hippke was when? When was that?
A On one of the longest days of the year. I remember, that I drove Hippke home in my car and it must have been one of the longest days of the year since it was still light when we went home.
Q That would have been in June or July?
A I assume that it was the end of June, and Kottenhoff shortly beforehand had spoken to me for the first time about Rascher's plans and when Kottenhoff and Hippke were talking I already know that Rascher had approached Kottenhoff, and had made these suggestions to him. It was nothing now to me when Kottenhoff told Hippke about it. Kottenhoff had told me beforehand.
Q It must have become known to you about the same time as Rascher's communication with the Reich Fuehrung, that is the 15th of May, 1941, is that the correct seeumption?
A No, what Kottenhoff told me was considerably later. That was shortly before the talk with Hippke.
Q Now, actually when this knowledge of the intention to use concentration camp inmates was brought home to you, that was perhaps the first of June 1941, not in May 1941, but in June, before the meeting with Hippke, is that right?
A I can't give you any more exact information about it than I already have. It was shortly before the talk with Hippke that Kottenhof told me about it for the first time, but I certainly did not hear of it after. I assume that this was May when Rascher was taking this course. I knew nothing about it.
Q Well, now where did Rascher take this course?
A When?
Q Where, where?
A The course was in the building of the Luftgau Command in Prinzregentenstrasse.
Q Was that near your institute?
A No, my institute was in the west, in Pettenkoterstrasse, in the University quarter, and the Luftgau building is somewhere else.
Q Who was giving this course? Was Kottenhof the instructor?
A No.
Q What were Kottenhof's duties?
A Kottenhof's permanent function was an expert for therapy welfare with Luftgau Physician No. 7, I believe. Who gave this course Luftgau 7 was responsible for it. Who actually gave the course, - I don't know. In any case Luftgau 7 organized the course and had a number of lectures for this course, and set up a program for the lectures. I remember for example Buchner, Kottenhof and myself lectured there. I believe that Singer did too, and some neurologist, whatever lecturers were available to this Luftgau and the neighboring Luftgaus, they were asked to assist at this course, and it was rather an extensive program.
Q Well, then Kottenhof had no connection with your institution?
A Not at this time, not officially.
Q Well, when did Kottenhof first have connection with your institute?
A With my institute for aviation medicine, Kottenhof never had any official connection.
Q You have introduced a lot of documents here about the knowledge of Kottenhof concerning these matters, and you mean to say Kottenhof had no connection whatever with the institute?
A Kottenhof was at my civilian department at the University in 1938 before the war.
Q Was he ever in your Luftwaffe Institute, did he ever come there and pay you a visit?
A No.
Q He never did?
A He was not a member of it, but of course he did visit me once in awhile. He had no official relation with it.
Q Well, then Kottenhof was the first one to inform you about the intentions to use concentration camp inmates, was he?
A Yes.
Q He got his knowledge from Rascher?
A Yes.
Q Then when Rascher referred to his confidential talk with a representative of the Luftgau physicians, do you assume he was referring to Kottenhof, in this Document 1602 PS?
A I assume so for two reasons, first of all Kottenhof told me about it afterwards. That he had talked to Rascher. And secondly, it seems to me the letter indicates this, the remark about monkey experiments. I have already said that Kottenhof, as a visitor at my civilian section, had performed those experiments on monkeys and he had reported the results of these tests at this course at Luftgau 7.
Q Well, now, let's go on. How did Hippke happen to come into the picture? What was this conference in June 1941 wherein the occasion arose for a discussion concerning experiments on inmates of a concentration camp; first of all where was the meeting?
A It was in the Preysing Palais in Munich. It was not a conference, but as I said before, Hippke happened to be, for reasons I do not know, a visitor to Luftgau 7 and expressed the wish to see a few of us in the evening.
We were all in civilian clothes. We were perhaps 13, including the Luftgau physician and these 13 gentlemen gathered in the Preysing Palais, and we dined with Hippke.
Q You were there?
A Yes.
Q Hippke was there?
A Yes.
Q Kottenhof was there?
A Yes.
Q Was Rascher there?
A No, he was not.
Q Was anyone else there whom we have mentioned here in this trial?
A Nobody. Of the people mentioned here in this trial I do not remember anybody I don't believe.
Q Was Lutz there?
A No.
Q Was Wendt there?
A No.
Q Now, will you kindly tell us how the discussion happened to arise concerning experiments on human beings in the concentration camps? Who brought up that subject?
A I believe I reported this already. Early in the evening, Kottenhof was sitting at the top of the table, and I sat on Hippke's left. Kottenhof joined us and sat between Hippke and myself, and brought up this subject to Hippke. He asked him what he thought about all this and Kottenhof told Hippke that Rascher had approached him with these plans to experiment on criminals and this idea he reported to Hippke and asked him his opinion.
Q Well, now at this time what did Hippke say, can you remember as nearly as possible just what Hippke said about it; what was his reaction to it?
A At first Hippke was rather reserved. He didn't say very much. Kottenhof thereupon gave a few reasons, as I have said before. He said for instance this matter would be also to the advantage of the criminals and Hippke saw the point there -- he also described that they said this and that. Hippke didn't say no, but he also emphasized that experiments by doctors on themselves must be the basis. However, the conversation was very unsatisfactory, and reached no conclusion, and as I said before the definition seemed a very unfortunate one. We talked past each one and at cross-purposes, and therefore I thought I should show by a practical example what I thought would be permissible and what would not be permissible.
Q Now, did Hippke ask you, inasmuch as you had an institute and were an expert in this field, did Hippke ask you "Professor Weltz, is it necessary to resort to concentration camps in order to conduct these experiments?"
A No, he didn't ask me that. The purpose of the conversation was the fact that Rascher had approached Kottenhof, had made this offer and the question of whether the offer should be approved or not was the topic of the conversation, and I said before no concrete experiment was being discussed at that point, that they should begin next month, and that they should be high altitude experiments. It was a theoretical conversation whether such things were permissible and under what conditions they would be permissible. That was the basis of such a conversation.
Q From what you say it would have been possible for you and Kottenhof and Hippke to have nipped in the bud any experiments on human beings in Dachau at this meeting in May 1941, wouldn't it have?
A Now today as I know the facts I am not inclined to think so, because the reason why experiments were carried out was the fact that Rascher had approached Himmler and Himmler had given permission.
Q What was Rascher' s rank in June 1941?
A He was Oberarzt or Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, I am not sure.